The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: FlatOrange on June 11, 2013, 03:56:21 PM

10 Most Important Numbers In The World (http://#ws)
Pi is my personal favorite.

I'm a fan of Avogadro's. A number that allows you to predict how chemical reactions will end up is just awesome.

e is clearly the best.
e

Its æ.

Euler's number? That's definitely e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant))
e

i think he's just saying æ is his favorite.

If so, I apologize. I thought he was contradicting me.

69 :D

What, no gamma?
edit: it said important not interesting.

69 :D
I prefer 34.5. Doesn't disturb the reading of a good book.

69 :D
I prefer 34.5. Doesn't disturb the reading of a good book.
How the hell do you concentrate?

No gas constant, I am disappoint.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
Are you suggesting that e is not meaningful?

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.
Exactly. c is subject to relativity such that it is the only real constant in physics. No matter what your frame of reference, c is the same.
I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
Are you suggesting that e is not meaningful?
It's meaningful, but not inherently so.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.
Exactly. c is subject to relativity such that it is the only real constant in physics. No matter what your frame of reference, c is the same.
How can c be the only real constant? Time isn't constant and c is a speed ... subject to time and I think but would need to confirm also temperature but I think that's because temperature is a variable of time. One might also argue distance is a variable regarding space bending etc but again that could be because time changes and that's used to measure large distances. Anyway c is meaningless. The golden ratio really is always the same under all conditions. That ones a keeper.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.
Exactly. c is subject to relativity such that it is the only real constant in physics. No matter what your frame of reference, c is the same.
How can c be the only real constant? Time isn't constant and c is a speed ... subject to time and I think but would need to confirm also temperature but I think that's because temperature is a variable of time. One might also argue distance is a variable regarding space bending etc but again that could be because time changes and that's used to measure large distances. Anyway c is meaningless. The golden ratio really is always the same under all conditions. That ones a keeper.
That's how relativity works. Other variables, such as time and length, change in order to keep c at the same value relative to the observer. People from any two frames of reference will get different values for time, but their value for c will be exactly the same. The golden ratio isn't even always the case.

2 bad numbers...
1 is the loneliest number
2 can be as bad as 1,
because its the loneliest number since the number 1.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.
Exactly. c is subject to relativity such that it is the only real constant in physics. No matter what your frame of reference, c is the same.
How can c be the only real constant? Time isn't constant and c is a speed ... subject to time and I think but would need to confirm also temperature but I think that's because temperature is a variable of time. One might also argue distance is a variable regarding space bending etc but again that could be because time changes and that's used to measure large distances. Anyway c is meaningless. The golden ratio really is always the same under all conditions. That ones a keeper.
That's how relativity works. Other variables, such as time and length, change in order to keep c at the same value relative to the observer. People from any two frames of reference will get different values for time, but their value for c will be exactly the same. The golden ratio isn't even always the case.
How on earth does the golden ratio ever change? Its a ratio. Not a physical quantity. It cannot change. That's why its used so extensively in nature and the physical universe.
I'm going to ignore your comments on 'c'. Its just one of those arguments where I'm right and you are wrong and I'll end up wasting lots of time providing you with sources for something that ultimately neither of us care about.

Tausami is correct. The speed of light never changes, no matter how much you modify other variables. The speed of light is the only true constant in the universe.

Tausami is correct. The speed of light never changes, no matter how much you modify other variables. The speed of light is the only true constant in the universe.
Irritating.
The SI definition of c makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength. They could not just define it to be constant. They would have to fix the definition of the metre by stating which colour of light was being used.
It should also be noted that the value of c is wholly dependant on Einstein's theory of relativity being correct. And that thing has been battered to bits in recent years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml)

The plank length, I like it because it's the smallest distance you can get within the physical universe.

The SI definition of c makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength. They could not just define it to be constant. They would have to fix the definition of the metre by stating which colour of light was being used.
It should also be noted that the value of c is wholly dependant on Einstein's theory of relativity being correct. And that thing has been battered to bits in recent years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml)
Fascinating. An entire post that refutes absolutely nothing in mine, yet appears to try so very hard to do so.

I like the golden ratio, (1+5^(1/2))/2.
But the most important number has to be c, because it's the only one that's inherently meaningful.
c is subject to relativity. you were correct the first time. The golden ratio is the single most important number in the universe. More so than even pi.
Exactly. c is subject to relativity such that it is the only real constant in physics. No matter what your frame of reference, c is the same.
How can c be the only real constant? Time isn't constant and c is a speed ... subject to time and I think but would need to confirm also temperature but I think that's because temperature is a variable of time. One might also argue distance is a variable regarding space bending etc but again that could be because time changes and that's used to measure large distances. Anyway c is meaningless. The golden ratio really is always the same under all conditions. That ones a keeper.
That's how relativity works. Other variables, such as time and length, change in order to keep c at the same value relative to the observer. People from any two frames of reference will get different values for time, but their value for c will be exactly the same. The golden ratio isn't even always the case.
How on earth does the golden ratio ever change? Its a ratio. Not a physical quantity. It cannot change. That's why its used so extensively in nature and the physical universe.
I'm going to ignore your comments on 'c'. Its just one of those arguments where I'm right and you are wrong and I'll end up wasting lots of time providing you with sources for something that ultimately neither of us care about.
I'm going to ignore your ignorance of special relativity, because you're obviously Thork and I'm not getting involved in an argument with you.
Anyway, it's not that the golden ratio changes, it's that it's not always accurate. Due to various reasons it can be replaced by Lucas numbers or even whole numbers in certain situations.

I'm going to ignore your ignorance of special relativity
http://www.finaltheories.com/structure%20and%20composition/special%20relativity/SR%20is%20wrong.html (http://www.finaltheories.com/structure%20and%20composition/special%20relativity/SR%20is%20wrong.html)

I'm going to ignore your ignorance of special relativity
http://www.finaltheories.com/structure%20and%20composition/special%20relativity/SR%20is%20wrong.html (http://www.finaltheories.com/structure%20and%20composition/special%20relativity/SR%20is%20wrong.html)
How cute.
Added: I guess I will add something worthwhile. The author of that website seems to forget that to get a moving inertial frame of reference then reference had to be non inertial at some point. This ultimately decides who is in the actual moving F.O.R. For instance the stuff under "According to Relativity, the Length contractions become equal in two inertial systems with a relative velocity v" is correct in that each FOR sees the other as length contracted. But one of the FOR did accelerate, and thus is the true FOR that is contracted. Not quite sure why the author is stuck.

No gas constant, I am disappoint.
I am still upset about this.

Anyway, it's not that the golden ratio changes, it's that it's not always accurate. Due to various reasons it can be replaced by Lucas numbers or even whole numbers in certain situations.
The golden ratio is always accurate given that it is the positive solution of the equation x^{2}x+1=0. That solution never changes. It cannot be replaced by whole numbers or the ratios of whole numbers because it is irrational. Approximated yes, replaced no.
Edit: the equation should be x^{2}x1=0.

69 :D
I prefer 34.5. Doesn't disturb the reading of a good book.
How the hell do you concentrate?
Years of dedicated practice.

e is clearly the best.
e
ma man

Irritating.
The SI definition of c makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength. They could not just define it to be constant. They would have to fix the definition of the metre by stating which colour of light was being used.
It should also be noted that the value of c is wholly dependant on Einstein's theory of relativity being correct. And that thing has been battered to bits in recent years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml)
Einstein's theory of relativity has been battered to bits? What physics are you following? Relativity has passed everything that has been thrown at it, latest research being:
http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html (http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html)

The most important number is zero, as the concept of zero is one of the most fundamental lessons in modern day mathematics. It is easy to forget that for most of human history, the concept of zero was mathematically nonexistent.

The most important number is zero, as the concept of zero is one of the most fundamental lessons in modern day mathematics. It is easy to forget that for most of human history, the concept of zero was mathematically nonexistent.
It existed, in that you could have no goats, but not formalized in that you could not get a sensible answer from 11.

Irritating.
The SI definition of c makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength. They could not just define it to be constant. They would have to fix the definition of the metre by stating which colour of light was being used.
It should also be noted that the value of c is wholly dependant on Einstein's theory of relativity being correct. And that thing has been battered to bits in recent years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml)
Einstein's theory of relativity has been battered to bits? What physics are you following? Relativity has passed everything that has been thrown at it, latest research being:
http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html (http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html)
First of all, you should probably read the link Thork posted, as it thoroughly explains what he's talking about.
Second of all, you should read your own link, as it actually contradicts your point! :o

It existed, in that you could have no goats, but not formalized in that you could not get a sensible answer from 11.
Was this post supposed to add something to the discussion I have not already said? It seems to be a reply, but it just exactly repeats what I said with very linear verbiage.

Irritating.
The SI definition of c makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength. They could not just define it to be constant. They would have to fix the definition of the metre by stating which colour of light was being used.
It should also be noted that the value of c is wholly dependant on Einstein's theory of relativity being correct. And that thing has been battered to bits in recent years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/TheFirstTestThatProvesGeneralTheoryofRelativityWrong20259.shtml)
Einstein's theory of relativity has been battered to bits? What physics are you following? Relativity has passed everything that has been thrown at it, latest research being:
http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html (http://phys.org/news/201304einsteingravitytheorytoughestbizarre.html)
First of all, you should probably read the link Thork posted, as it thoroughly explains what he's talking about.
Second of all, you should read your own link, as it actually contradicts your point! :o
Why? Ævan already ran away from this thread.

Why?
So that you can learn something, for once.

Why?
So that you can learn something, for once.
You mean him learn something. I already disproved one of Ævan links. Is the current link in question actually not written by a 12 year old?

I like all the discussion! :B

First of all, you should probably read the link Thork posted, as it thoroughly explains what he's talking about.
Second of all, you should read your own link, as it actually contradicts your point! :o
Unless I have mistakenly misinterpreted what Thork was saying, he wasn't insinuating that the general theory of relativity has been "battered" in recent years simply because it must eventually be incorporated with quantum physics, it seemed to me as if he was suggesting that c is not a constant because the general theory of relativity is demonstrably being proven to be inconsistent or wrong.
Yes a photon is massless, the speed of light c is most definitely a constant (under known conditions) and yes the general theory of relativity is always going to be correct.
The theory is however going to breakdown, hopefully, under certain conditions which should inevitably pave the way for a grander theory which encompasses all known physics. Newton wasn't wrong and he still isn't wrong, his ideas are still be put to use, they just break down under certain circumstances.
I apologise if I misunderstood what he was trying to get across.

For Golden ratio guise there: while it is a constant, it is a constant in the same way that 5 is, because it is defined as a constant.
But c, being a speed, which is defined by a derivative of distance and time, shouldn't have to be constant. Nothing prohibited light going 30 km/hour and, under Newton's theory, it should be possible to do so. The fact that it isn't possible, and that it is not a transcendental number makes it way more interesting than pi or e or the Golden ratio.

For Golden ratio guise there: while it is a constant, it is a constant in the same way that 5 is, because it is defined as a constant.
But c, being a speed, which is defined by a derivative of distance and time, shouldn't have to be constant. Nothing prohibited light going 30 km/hour and, under Newton's theory, it should be possible to do so. The fact that it isn't possible, and that it is not a transcendental number makes it way more interesting than pi or e or the Golden ratio.
The speed of light in a vacuum is an arbitrary number based on units defined by arbitrary criteria. Being as we don't live in a vacuum its a fairly irrelevant number. the lengths of the bones in your hand are defined by the golden ratio. Your finger prints, the lengths of your arms, your legs, your features  the entire blueprint for your design. That's a number that has a direct effect on you.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/OSz23jIps/UPlD4yA2SzI/AAAAAAAARz0/nbYp8a6jqVY/s400/Fibonacci+Finger.jpeg)
It appears everywhere. The petals of a flower, the shape of a snail's shell, the spacing of planet orbits, music, art.
(http://www.phiday.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/goldenratiophiinsaturnandrings.gif)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18f8x7kmnem48jpg/original.jpg)
(http://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/GoldenMeanParthenonGoldenRatio.png)
And you think a theoretical number means more?

Only one number matters: the sacred cubit (0.63566 m).
http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html (http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html)
SACRED CUBIT = 0.63566
π = 3,1416
PHI = 1,618034
dp = 1 sacred cubit/25 x 100 = 2,5426
Then we obtain:
PHI/1dp = 1 sacred cubit
(PHI^2 x 12)/10 = π

The speed of light in a vacuum is an arbitrary number based on units defined by arbitrary criteria. Being as we don't live in a vacuum its a fairly irrelevant number. the lengths of the bones in your hand are defined by the golden ratio. Your finger prints, the lengths of your arms, your legs, your features  the entire blueprint for your design. That's a number that has a direct effect on you.
We know the refractive index of specific mediums, therefore we know the speed of light in those specific mediums. The speed of light isn't a useless number confined to esoteric theories.
I have also read a lot about how the golden ratio is applied erroneously in a post hoc sort of way. If you look for the golden ratio, you will seem to find it.
Here is an example where people have looked for the golden ratio and "found" it:
(http://www.iainclaridge.co.uk/studio/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/apple_logo1.jpg)
And here is the debunk: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672682/debunkingthemythofapplesgoldenratio#1 (http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672682/debunkingthemythofapplesgoldenratio#1)
Organisms will arrange themselves and their constituent parts in the most efficient ways possible which will be using Fibonacci numbers. The golden ratio derives from the inevitable efficiency of systems, the golden ratio doesn't govern nature. Plants don't know what the hell a fibonacci number is.
It would be like me saying the sphere is the most important shape in the universe because it is the shape that requires the least energy to form.
The speed of light, e, pi and say Avogadro's number are much more important than the golden ratio.

Only one number matters: the sacred cubit (0.63566 m).
http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html (http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html)
SACRED CUBIT = 0.63566
π = 3,1416
PHI = 1,618034
dp = 1 sacred cubit/25 x 100 = 2,5426
Then we obtain:
PHI/1dp = 1 sacred cubit
(PHI^2 x 12)/10 = π
First of all, what is dp? Your equation says it's just 4 x cubit. all a cubit is is a solution to the equation:
PHI/4x=x => PHI=4x^2
So you're using a measurement based off of the cubit... To find the measurement of the cubit.. I see.
Also, why is the last equation and pi necessary for anything having to do with the cubit? phi wasn't derived from pi, as far as I'm aware.

It isn't even that it's the most efficient. It's literally the only way they can form in most circumstances. They form that way because the direction in which a petal (or whatever) grows is determined by the amount of a hormone in that direction. When they grow, they use up that hormone. Therefore, the only three ways a plant can are are to follow phi, lucas numbers, or in a 180 degree pattern. It's really not that extraordinary.
Anyway, when I say c I do not mean 3X10^{8}. I mean the unitless speed of light. It doesn't have to be in meters/second^{2}

(PHI^2 x 12)/10 = π
Incorrect. Phi is an algebraic number whist pi is trancendental. No algebraic manipulation of phi, using rational numbers and rational powers, will result in pi.

But it is correct.
You simply have not read yet my Irrational Numbers do not Exist thread in the .net website (look for it there).
You have not done the research needed to understand this very important issue: the work done for the past 150 years which demonstrates that irrational numbers (algebraic or transcendental) do not exist, they are a mathematical pipe dream.

But it is correct.
You simply have not read yet my Irrational Numbers do not Exist thread in the .net website (look for it there).
You have not done the research needed to understand this very important issue: the work done for the past 150 years which demonstrates that irrational numbers (algebraic or transcendental) do not exist, they are a mathematical pipe dream.
Incorrect, as for I know. Just inputed that equation on Wolfram Alpha. The result, with 52 decimal numbers is: 3.1416407864998738178455042012387657412643710157669154
While the correct value of pi with 50 decimal numbers is:
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
It has an error of almost 5x10^5.
Also, just because someone didn't read/believed you sources it cannot be trusted. The amount of experimental and demostrative evidence is so big that it isn't even investigated anymore. While you are open to make your own claims, as you can see, they are not correct.

But it is correct.
You simply have not read yet my Irrational Numbers do not Exist thread in the .net website (look for it there).
You have not done the research needed to understand this very important issue: the work done for the past 150 years which demonstrates that irrational numbers (algebraic or transcendental) do not exist, they are a mathematical pipe dream.
This is true, I have not done my homework; I have done my University work. The existence of irrational numbers has been known for ages. The irrational numbers outnumber the rational ones. You see, I get my mathematics from text books and mathematics professors.
Every internet forum has some crackpot who thinks he has discovered something new. The irrationality of the square root of 2 is often proved in the text books, and by generalising that proof, the irrationality of the n^{th} root of any integer which is not a perfect n^{th} power is established. At the heart of the proof is the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
The irrationality of e can be proved without recourse to the aforementioned theorem. I recommend a little reading for you:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ProofsBOOKMartinAigner/dp/3642008550 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/ProofsBOOKMartinAigner/dp/3642008550)
Proofs From the Book a compendium of some of the most elegant theorems in mathematics, compiled in honour of the great mathematician Paul Erdos.

As I have said, you (both of you) have not done your homework.
The existence of irrational numbers has been known for ages.
Not at all, as I will demonstrate shortly.
conker, please refrain from punchdrunk theoretizing...each decimal digit must be connected in some way to real physics.
The irrationality of the square root of 2 HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, this is the point I am trying to make.
Now, please read the following very carefully.
OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY IRRATIONAL NUMBER HISTORY
The concept of the irrational number has its origins in the secret society led by Pythagoras, approximately 2,500 years ago. It could be said that the invention of the irrational number is the greatest "scientific" discovery ever made, as we are told by all the leading mathematical analysis textbooks.
'The idea that the size of every physical quantity could, in theory, be represented by a rational number was shattered in the fifth century B.C. by Hippasus of Metapontum, who demonstrated by geometric methods the existence of irrational numbers. This dramatic discovery of Hippasus is one of the most fundamental in the entire history of science. According to legend, Hippasus was thrown overboard at sea, by the Pythagoreans, because of his discovery.'
But Hippasus was not assasinated by Pythagoras' disciples for revealing the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus had discovered something much more ominous about this matter.
The odd thing about the discovery of the irrational numbers is the fact that the most celebrated "proofs" (geometrical/algebraic) were offered by Pythagoras himself to the public through his disciples. What Hippasus had uncovered was something much more interesting; that is, that THERE ARE NO IRRATIONAL NUMBERS (there exist only natural and rational numbers [with a finite decimal part]), and that Pythagoras was planning to inject the false concept of the irrational number to the public (scientific/philosophical). The two proofs offered by Pythagoras do not demonstrate ANYTHING regarding the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus was assasinated by his colleagues so as not to reveal to the world what Pythagoras was actually trying to do: to mislead the coming generations of mathematicians.
http://wwwgroups.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Kronecker.html (http://wwwgroups.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Kronecker.html)
The only mathematician who realized that there were no irrational numbers in the real/physical world, and who continuously attacked R. Dedekind and G. Cantor for their mathematical pipe dreams, was Leopold Kronecker.
Kronecker is well known for his remark:
God created the integers, all else is the work of man.
Irrational numbers are totally maninvented.
Kronecker believed that mathematics should deal only with finite numbers and with a finite number of operations. He was the first to doubt the significance of nonconstructive existence proofs. It appears that, from the early 1870s, Kronecker was opposed to the use of irrational numbers, upper and lower limits, and the BolzanoWeierstrass theorem, because of their nonconstructive nature. Another consequence of his philosophy of mathematics was that to Kronecker transcendental numbers could not exist.
In 1870 Heine published a paper On trigonometric series in Crelle's Journal, but Kronecker had tried to persuade Heine to withdraw the paper. Again in 1877 Kronecker tried to prevent publication of Cantor's work in Crelle's Journal, not because of any personal feelings against Cantor (which has been suggested by some biographers of Cantor) but rather because Kronecker believed that Cantor's paper was meaningless, since it proved results about mathematical objects which Kronecker believed did not exist. Kronecker was on the editorial staff of Crelle's Journal which is why he had a particularly strong influence on what was published in that journal. After Borchardt died in 1880, Kronecker took over control of Crelle's Journal as the editor and his influence on which papers would be published increased.
Although Kronecker's view of mathematics was well known to his colleagues throughout the 1870s and 1880s, it was not until 1886 that he made these views public. In that year he argued against the theory of irrational numbers used by Dedekind, Cantor and Heine giving the arguments by which he opposed:
... the introduction of various concepts by the help of which it has frequently been attempted in recent times (but first by Heine) to conceive and establish the 'irrationals' in general. Even the concept of an infinite series, for example one which increases according to definite powers of variables, is in my opinion only permissible with the reservation that in every special case, on the basis of the arithmetic laws of constructing terms (or coefficients), ... certain assumptions must be shown to hold which are applicable to the series like finite expressions, and which thus make the extension beyond the concept of a finite series really unnecessary.
Lindemann had proved that π is transcendental in 1882, and in a lecture given in 1886 Kronecker complimented Lindemann on a beautiful proof but, he claimed, one that proved nothing since transcendental numbers did not exist.
He believed that all mathematics could be reduced to arguments using only the integers and finite numbers of operations. He was violently opposed to such things as the use of irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, upper and lower limits, and the BolzanoWeierstrass theorem (well, much of the new mathematics being developed by Karl Weierstrass for that matter), as these devices he felt produced objects that did not exist. This extreme philosophical viewpoint on mathematics caused him to quarrel with many mathematicians, even going so far as to block publication of papers by Heinrich Heine (of the HeineBorel theorem) on Fourier series and papers by Georg Cantor on transfinite numbers and set theory (not because he personally didn't like Cantor, as asserted by some of Cantor's biographers, but only because he was violently opposed to Cantor's ideas) in the influential Crelle's Journal. In 1889 Ferdinand von Lindemann produced a proof that π was transcendental, and Kronecker was said to have given von Lindemann the backhanded compliment: 'Of what use is your beautiful proof, since π does not exist!'
This extreme point of view, which made Kronecker many enemies in his time, was actually a view first propounded by Pythagoras, who called the irrational numbers that he discovered to his consternation 'unutterable' (this is the reason why the word surd is used to designate the irrational roots discovered by the Pythagoreans, it is ultimately derived from the Latin for 'deafmute'). Leibniz himself spoke of the 'labyrinth of the continuum' when referring to the philosophical troubles that the very idea of real numbers is fraught with. In fact the term 'real number' is something of a misnomer, as they are actually quite unreal! In fact, it can be shown that almost all real numbers are transcendental, uncomputable, and cannot even be named! Mathematicians in the century after Kronecker managed to show all of these, and with these discoveries, Kronecker's position doesn't seem quite as untenable as it seemed to his contemporaries.
First of all, we start with the theory of real numbers that was proposed by Cantor and Richard Dedekind, which Kronecker was so vehemently opposed to. Dedekind managed to give a definition of a real number in terms of what are today known as Dedekind cuts, and Cantor managed to show that the real numbers are nondenumerable, that they are a higherorder infinity than the integers by using the diagonal argument that bears his name. Since the integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers are all denumerable, then that means that most real numbers are actually transcendental.
However, in the early twentieth century there began to appear intimations that there was something terribly wrong with the notion of a real number as it has been thus developed. Emile Borel in 1927 pointed out that if you consider a real number as an infinite sequence of digits then you could put an infinite amount of information into a single number. He came up with a number, known as Borel's constant, that could serve as an oracle to answer any yes/no question put to it. Today, Borel's argument might be stated a bit like this: let us treat each possible ASCII text as though it were a single number, for instance 'Do real numbers exist?' would correspond to the hexadecimal number 0x446F207265616C206E786973743F, or 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327 in decimal. Then we take, say, the 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327th digit of Borel's constant in base 4. If the digit is 0, then the number does not correspond to a valid question, if it is 1 then the question is unanswerable (e.g. 'Is the answer to this question 'no'?'), 2 if the answer is no, and 3 if the answer is yes. Such a 'know it all' real number is certainly present in the set of all reals. But then Borel asks this troubling question: 'Why should we believe in this real number that answers every possible yes/no question?' And he concludes that he doesn't believe it, there is no reason to believe it, that such a thing should exist is totally absurd!
The proof by contradiction, suggested by Pythagoras and made public by his disciples, where it is shown that rad(2) [radical of 2, square root of 2] cannot equal p/q, where p and q are natural numbers 0, is not a valid proof as it deliberately misses the essential point; rad(2) is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.
There are no perfect circles or perfect squares in the natural world, this was Pythagoras' greatest secret regarding his mathematics research; any perfect circle implies the concept of the irrational number;
a[2] + b[2] = c[2] is a formula involving natural or rational numbers; its geometric representation is a right triangle with sides a and b, c being the hypothenuse. 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2] is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.
To construct proper solutions to 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2], with proper geometric representations, we need to use the continued fraction algorithm. Using this algorithm, to three decimal places, we obtain 1.414,
1 = .414 x 1/.414 = a
c = (0.414 + 1/0.414)/2, b = (1/0.414  0.414)/2
We obtain, (2 x 0.414)(2) + (1  0.414(2))(2) = (0.414(2) + 1)(2)
* (0.828 )(2) + (0.828604)(2) = (1.171396)(2) * or, after multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4,
207000(2) + 207151(2) = 292849(2), further,
207000/292849 + 207151/292849 = 1.414213468
If we multiply * (the equation above marked with *) by, for example, 1.207 we get:
(0.999396)(2) + (1.000125028 )(2) = (1.413874972)(2), and this is a proper solution to three decimal places accuracy.
Pythagoras also knew that there are only rational numbers with finite decimal part; in the real world there are no fractions such as 1/3, 1/7 which imply infinity, and infinity cannot exist in the physical world. It is possible, using the continued fraction algorithm, to obtain very close (as close as we please) approximations to 1/3, 1/7 whose denominators are in the form 2(n), 5(m), which can be divided exactly, b/c, where b is a multiple of 3 (ex: 0.999396/3).
Elementary transcendental functions can be reduced to calculating a series of nested roots, thus obtaining approximations which do not involve irrational numbers (I obtained such a representation for the logarithm function, back in 1998).

WHY WAS THE IRRATIONAL NUMBER CONCEPT SO BADLY NEEDED BY THE HELIOCENTRISTS?
And now we get to the crux of the matter: when Newton invented his results on the three body problem, he did not realize that the differential equations approach, built upon the irrational number concept, cannot possibly describe mathematically the heliocentric planetary system because of the existence of chaotical orbits, the quadratic homoclinic tangency problem.
The first great mathematician who discovered with amazement and shock that Newton's differential equations include chaotical orbits was Henri Poincare.
It is only at the highest level of academic circles specialized in bifurcation theory (thus, wellhidden from public view) where we find the truth about the original H. Poincare quotes, which do show that a differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.
As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.
Here is Poincare describing his findings:
While Poincare did not succeed in giving a complete solution, his work was so impressive that he was awarded the prize anyway. The distinguished Weierstrass, who was one of the judges, said, 'this work cannot indeed be considered as furnishing the complete solution of the question proposed, but that it is nevertheless of such importance that its publication will inaugurate a new era in the history of celestial mechanics.' A lively account of this event is given in Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System. To show how visionary Poincare was, it is perhaps best if he described the Hallmark of Chaos  sensitive dependence on initial conditions  in his own words:
'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.'  in a 1903 essay 'Science and Method'
That is why the conspirators had to invent a very complicated new theory, called chaos theory, with the help of G.D. Birkhoff and N. Levinson; their work was the inspiration for S. Smale's horseshoe map, a very clever way to describe Poincare's original findings as "workable" and "manageable". The formidable implications are, of course, that chaotical motion of the planets predicted by the differential equation approach of the London Royal Society is a thing that could happen ANYTIME, and not just some millions of years in the future, not to mention the sensitive dependence on initial conditions phenomenon.
Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090108031631/http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090108031631/http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm)
http://ptrow.com/articles/ChaosandSolarSystem5.htm (http://ptrow.com/articles/ChaosandSolarSystem5.htm)
Smale Horseshoe concept:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/Chaos_Course/Lesson23/Predicting.pdf (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/Chaos_Course/Lesson23/Predicting.pdf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map)
KAM theory:
http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf (http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf)
Velikovsky stability theory:
http://www.ralphabraham.org/interviews/abrahamebert.html (http://www.ralphabraham.org/interviews/abrahamebert.html)
Butterfly effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor) (this is the only time you will see wikipedia type articles in my messages)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)
E. Lorenz did not realize that a system of three nonlinear differential equations could not approximate at all such a complicated natural phenomenon; there is no butterfly effect, the weather in Asia will not change due to the movement of a butterfly's wings in North America (sensitive dependence on initial conditions).
http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gaspard/G.Acad.00.pdf (http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gaspard/G.Acad.00.pdf)
Homoclinic orbits:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0702/0702044v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0702/0702044v2.pdf)
Poincare chaos:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061208155727/http://pims.math.ca/pi/current/page2529.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20061208155727/http://pims.math.ca/pi/current/page2529.pdf)
Dynamics and Bifurcations, J. Hale and H. Kocak (pages 248, 477, 486490)
Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos, S. Wiggins (pages 286, 384, 420443, 550, 612), both edited by SpringerVerlag; the information in these pages actually show the mathematical and physical implications of chaos theory.
The Duffing oscillator (prototype for nonlinear oscillations), the driven Morse oscillator, Poincare's three body problem equations, the librational motion of a satellite equations, the GinzburgLandau equation (nonlinear Schrodinger eq.) which reduces to the Duffing oscillator, all will have parameter values for which the stable/unstable manifolds of a saddle point will come into contact tangentially  homoclinic tangency.
Differential equations can be used on a very limited base (classical mechanics, qualitycontrol, electronics/electrical engr., thermodynamics, and even here with certain assumptions/simplifications) and not at all in order to describe/predict biological processes and cosmological theories, where the aether theory comes into play to explain all the details.
Moreover, the system parameters will be varying functions of time, not to mention that the coefficients of the forcing/damping functions will not be "sufficiently small" in actual practice.
The assumptions actually made in describing various phenomena in several branches of physics are very well described in the classic Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in natural sciences by C.C. Lin and L. Segel (chapters 1, 4, 6, 8 ); page 43 exemplifies the extraordinary philosophical implications of the differential equation approach in modern physics:
http://www.ecsecurehost.com/SIAM/CL01.html (http://www.ecsecurehost.com/SIAM/CL01.html)
Now we know that Pythagoras never existed actually, as there were no ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt in our radical new chronology, and that the conspirators invented the irrational number concept in order to deceive the public regarding the Pythagorean comma (instead of a circle of fifths, we would have a spiral of fifths); they also invented, through J.S. Bach, the equal temperament scale in order to hide the real scale they used to produce levitation of large blocks of stone.
D. Hempel on Pythagoras' irrational numbers:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10283 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10283)
http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/forum/showpost.php?s=b7d281def62a68bb3f0971352e1ed848&p=30829&postcount=5 (http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/forum/showpost.php?s=b7d281def62a68bb3f0971352e1ed848&p=30829&postcount=5)
Scientists used to, before the chaos theory, believe in the
theory of reductionism, many still do. Reductionism imagines nature as equally
capable of being assembled and disassembled. Reductionists think that when
everything is broken down a universal theory will become evident that will
explain all things. Reductionism implied the rather simple view of chaos
evident in Laplace's dream of a universal formula: Chaos was merely complexity
so great that in practice scientists couldn't track it, but in principle they
might one day be able to. When that day came there would be no chaos,
everything in existence would be perfectly predictable, no surprises, the
world would be safely mutable. The universe would be completely controlled by
Newton's laws.
Chaos touches all things in existence, and all sciences,
mathematics, physics, biology, anthropology, entomology, astronomy, even the
Ivory Tower science of Newtonian physics. In the last years of the 19th
century French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Henri Poincare
stumbled headlong into chaos with a realization that the reductionism method
may be illusory in nature. He was studying his chosen field at the time; a
field he called the mathematics of closed systems, the epitome of Newtonian
physics. A Closed system is one made up of just a few interacting bodies
sealed off from outside contamination. According to classical physics, such
systems are perfectly orderly and predictable. A simple pendulum in a vacuum,
free of friction and air resistance will conserve its energy. The pendulum
will swing back and forth for all eternity. It will not be subject to the
dissipation of entropy, which eats its way into systems by causing them to
give up their energy to the surrounding environment. Classical scientists were
convinced that any randomness and chaos disturbing a system such as a pendulum
in a vacuum or the revolving planets could only come from outside chance
contingencies. Barring those, pendulum and planets must continue forever,
unvarying in their courses.
It was this comfortable picture of nature that
Poincare blew apart when he attempted to determine the stability of our solar
system. For a system containing only two bodies, such as the sun and earth or
earth and moon, Newton's equations can be solved exactly: The orbit of the
moon around the earth can be precisely determined. For any idealized twobody
system the orbits are stable. Thus if we neglect the dragging effects of the
tides on the moon's motion, we can assume that the moon will continue to wind
around the earth until the end of time. But we also have to ignore the effect
of the sun and other planets on this idealized twobody system. Poincare's
problem was that when an additional body was added to the situation, like the
influence of the sun, Newton's equations became unsolvable. What must be done
in this situation is use a series of approximations to close in on an answer.
In order to solve such an equation, physicists were forced to use a theory
called Perturbation. Which basically works in a third body by a series of
successive approximations. Each approximation is smaller than the one before
it, and by adding up a potentially infinite amount of these numbers,
theoretical physicists hoped to arrive a working equation. Poincare knew that
the approximation theory appeared to work well for the first couple of
approximations, but what about further down the line, what effect would the
infinity of smaller approximations have? The multibodied equation Poincare?
was attempting was essentially a Nonlinear equation. As opposed to a
differential or linear equation. For science, a phenomenon is orderly if its
movements can be explained in the kind of causeandeffect scheme represented
by a differential equation. Newton first introduced the differential idea
throughout his famous laws of motion, which related rates of change to various
forces. Quickly scientists came to rely on linear differential equations.
Phenomena as diverse as the flight of a cannonball, the growth of a plant, the
burning of coal, and the performance of a machine can be described by such
equations. In which small changes produce small effects and large effects are
obtained by summing up many small changes. A nonlinear equation is quite
different. In a nonlinear equation a small change in one variable can have a
disproportional, even catastrophic impact on other variables. Behaviors can
drastically change at any time. In linear equations the solution of one
equation allows the solver to generalize to other solutions; in nonlinear
equations solutions tend to be consistently individual and unrelated to the
same equation with different variables. In Poincare's multibodied equation,
he added a term that added nonlinear complexity to the system (feedback) that
corresponded to the small effect produced by the movement of the third body in
the system. As he experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2body orbit, and were still stable but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.
Poincare's discovery was not fully understood until 1953 by Russian physicist A. N. Kolmogorov. Initially
scientists believed that in theory they could break up a complicated system
into its components before experimentation because any changes in patterns
would be small and not effect an established construct such as an orbit.
Kolmogorov was not prepared to accept that the whole universe is a fraction of
a decimal point away from selfdestruction. Unfortunately his research didn't
help. Kolmgorov concluded, from his own calculations, that the solar system
won't break up under its own motion provided that the influence of an
additional gravitational source was no bigger than a fly approximately 7000
miles away, and the cycles per planetary year did not occur in a simple
ratio like 1:2 1:3 or 2:3 and so on.
But, what happens when the planet's years form a simple ratio? Well, that would mean that with each orbit, the
disturbance is amplified due to a steady input of gravitational energy. It
creates a resonance feedback effect much like a normal microphone amplifier.
Say you lie an amplifiers input mic directly in front of its output speaker.
Any sound that enters the microphone will be played back through the speaker
louder, that playback will be picked up by the mic and amplified once again,
eventually the volume will reach its critical point and the speaker will blow
out. Well, if this were so, is there proof? Does this really happen in space?
Could this occur in our solar system? The answer is yes.
No other comments are needed.

If we lived on a planet governed by the laws of Sandokhan I don't think we would have made it past the year 3000BC in technological terms...

The irrationality of the square root of 2 HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, this is the point I am trying to make.
The irrationality of the square root of 2 has been proven because I have proved it. This does not mean I discovered the proof it means I can follow the proof, reconstruct it from memory and fully understand it. To refute my claim that the square root of 2 is irrational please provide me with the integers which form its ratio.

I'm going to analyze your claims, if you don't care:
conker, please refrain from punchdrunk theoretizing...each decimal digit must be connected in some way to real physics.
Yeah, no. Maths =/= science.
Blah blah blah conspiracy which does not apport anything valuable. Also you seem to think than 1 source is better than multiple sources. And you tell the heartwarming story of the "beautiful yet useless" pi proof twice. Is that copypasta I see?
Emile Borel in 1927 pointed out that if you consider a real number as an infinite sequence of digits then you could put an infinite amount of information into a single number [...] known as Borel's constant, that could serve as an oracle to answer any yes/no question put to it. [...] Borel's argument might be stated a bit like this: let us treat each possible ASCII text as though it were a single number, for instance 'Do real numbers exist?' would correspond to the hexadecimal number 0x446F207265616C206E786973743F, or 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327 in decimal. Then we take, say, the 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327th digit of Borel's constant in base 4. If the digit is 0, then the number does not correspond to a valid question, if it is 1 then the question is unanswerable (e.g. 'Is the answer to this question 'no'?'), 2 if the answer is no, and 3 if the answer is yes. Such a 'know it all' real number is certainly present in the set of all reals. But then Borel asks this troubling question: 'Why should we believe in this real number that answers every possible yes/no question?' And he concludes that he doesn't believe it, there is no reason to believe it, that such a thing should exist is totally absurd!
I believe it is funny that I couldn't find a single reference about Borel's constant anywhere. Care to post sources?
Also: Information theory, man. A decaying radioactive isothope emits radiation at random intervals (given a short sampling time). This can be used to provide one of the only real random information sources. It is perfectly possible that a sample would correspond to the ASCII equivalent in base 63 of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", yet it is impossible to know when the string will do that, even with infinite computing power and time. So, the information it contains is fully enthropical. No information can be extracted from that. The same goes to your constant
The proof by contradiction, suggested by Pythagoras and made public by his disciples, where it is shown that rad(2) [radical of 2, square root of 2] cannot equal p/q, where p and q are natural numbers 0, is not a valid proof as it deliberately misses the essential point; rad(2) is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.
No. A continued fraction algorithm is a method for calculating that root to a certain degree of accuracy. Yet the root is not defined like that. It's defined as the limit of such a succesion. Also, you are yet to proove it is not a valid proof.
Elementary transcendental functions can be reduced to calculating a series of nested roots
_{[citation needed]}
Then you come with the 3body problem, which is in fact a consequence of using not infinitely precise numbers (more or less).
Also, 3 body problems exist outside of gravitation. Substitute gravitation for electromagnetism and give me the function of the movement along a space of 4 electric charges put at random locations using your method.
Also, tidal lock. And try to be a bit less of a selfconfident jerk when it comes to preach derp science. I may not be the brighttest light in this forum, yet I see what you said, has several faults.

Here is a proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2. I've tried to make it accessible to anybody with high school algebra.
(http://i.imgur.com/aMuH66o.jpg) (http://imgur.com/aMuH66o)
If you change your zoom level it becomes easier to read.

I have to ask, why do people bother trying to argue with Sandokhan? Do you guys seriously even bother to read his posts? He'll stop posting if you just ignore them.

I have to ask, why do people bother trying to argue with Sandokhan? Do you guys seriously even bother to read his posts? He'll stop posting if you just ignore them.
The continued updates to his magnum opus in FEB seem to contradict this.

His post has made my two favorite numbers pi and e.

e

I have to ask, why do people bother trying to argue with Sandokhan? Do you guys seriously even bother to read his posts? He'll stop posting if you just ignore them.
I bother because I don't want his piffle about mathematics to be left unchallenged. I couldn't care two hoots about his other piffle.

But it's all so transparently piffle.
His ability to engage multiple people in debate with those monstrous walls of nonsense is astounding.

I wouldn't call it nonsense. I don't agree with it, of course, but there is a certain logic to it. It's based on something; it's not simply gibberish.

It's just so hard to not skip over the wall of text and reference to discontinued work from the 1800s.

The most important numbers in the universe are numbers themselves, for if they did not exist, neither would you.

The most important numbers in the universe are numbers themselves, for if they did not exist, neither would you.
How so?

Numbers exist because existence demands it. Numbers represent reality. Without reality, no numbers would exist, even zero, because the concept of nothing cannot exist if the universe did not exist, because the concept of nothing requires there be a concept of something you can have nothing of.
This all goes along the same philosophical thinking as the question to whether one can change a physical law and still have an internally consistent universe. A general consensus is either one universe or an infinite amount exist. The people who believe in the one universe theory propose that if the universe were any other way, it simply can't exist. The idea that the laws of physics are the laws of physics because if they were not, physics would not exist at all. The science of answering "why" instead of "how." Why do quarks behave the way they do? The answer may simply be because they must.

Numbers exist because existence demands it. Numbers represent reality. Without reality, no numbers would exist, even zero, because the concept of nothing cannot exist if the universe did not exist, because the concept of nothing requires there be a concept of something you can have nothing of.
This all goes along the same philosophical thinking as the question to whether one can change a physical law and still have an internally consistent universe. A general consensus is either one universe or an infinite amount exist. The people who believe in the one universe theory propose that if the universe were any other way, it simply can't exist. The idea that the laws of physics are the laws of physics because if they were not, physics would not exist at all. The science of answering "why" instead of "how." Why do quarks behave the way they do? The answer may simply be because they must.
I think I see the Anthropic principle lurking in there some where...

I think I see the Anthropic principle lurking in there some where...
Which is a fundamentally flawed perspective in comparison to my previous statements, since they make direct claims for the universe supporting life (rather than my explanation of internally consistent physics). They're reasoning is flawed because if the universe did not support life, they would not be here to argue about it. The Anthropic principle is unfalsifiable, even from a thought experiment standpoint. My statements, however, can be falsified, but only in a metaphorical fashion. One can not literally change physical laws.

Raunchy the Fairest, in all these years you have proven yourself to be one of the most gullible and uninformed persons who ever took place in debates here.
You are unable to prove your point (whatever that was) each and every time you debate: no bibliography, no intelligent approach, no overall cognitive goal.
There was never any nonsense in my messages: I was the ONLY one able to debunk the BEAM NEUTRINO, RING LASER GYROSCOPES, HAM RADIO EARTHMOON DISTANCE and AXIAL PRECESSION threads precisely.
You are nowhere to be found in any serious discussion on flat earth theory.
Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.
conker, I appreciate your response but you did not address the main points of my message at all. Please read again: Kronecker demonstrated to both Cantor and Dedekind their faulty approach to mathematics.
Real numbers are a simple mathematical invention with no connection to the real world.
mathsman, your effort is noted.

Which is a fundamentally flawed perspective in comparison to my previous statements, since they make direct claims for the universe supporting life (rather than my explanation of internally consistent physics). They're reasoning is flawed because if the universe did not support life, they would not be here to argue about it. The Anthropic principle is unfalsifiable, even from a thought experiment standpoint. My statements, however, can be falsified, but only in a metaphorical fashion. One can not literally change physical laws.
I don't believe the principle is flawed when used in its most common form, that is the weak anthropic principle, I most certainly do not indorse the strong version.
"the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld"
Which is pretty selfexplanatory. If it is the case that this universe is the only universe that will and has ever existed, the weak anthropic principle inevitably collapses.

now, conker, I have more time at my disposal to address your concerns.
I did not post any bibliographical references on Borel's work on real numbers, I thought you already knew what was going on; I was wrong.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf)
So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.
Clear enough for you?
http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man (http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man)
A continued fraction algorithm is a method for calculating that root to a certain degree of accuracy.
Exactly! The square root of a, always results in a periodic continued fraction (CF) when a is a squarefree integer.
Yet the root is not defined like that. It's defined as the limit of such a succesion.
There was no need to specify this: we are all here discussing at a level where such things are understood; it is exactly what was meant in my message.
The square root of 2 is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.
Moreover, a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2} is a formula involving natural or rational numbers; its geometric representation is a right triangle with sides a and b, c being the hypothenuse. 1^{2} + 1^{2} = (rad(2))^{2} is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.
My demonstration that Newton's differential equations could not possibly represent the movement of the heliocentric planetary system comes from the very best bibliographical references on bifurcation theory, a subject of mathematics way beyond your means at the present time.
Read it again, and you will see that what I wrote is true and correct.

So numbers like sqrt2 can be calculated to a desired significance using the algorithm. At what point are they actually solved and end? What is the finite solution to sqrt2 without it being an approximation?

Unless I am mistaken Sandokhan, are claiming that the square root of 2 does not exist because it results in a number that cannot be applicable to reality? We cannot use root 2 in real life, it makes no physical sense, therefore it doesn't exist? What?
The square root of 1 is used extensively in many fields including fluid dynamics, electrical engineering, quantum mechanics and signal processing.
Obviously the square root of 1 has no physical, tangible value. But mathematics is system utilised to solve problems, it doesn't need to make intuitive sense to YOU to be the truth.
The ratio between the length and width of a piece of paper is root 2. Of course it isn't exactly root 2, it is root 2 which an accuracy the same as the accuracy of the length and widths of the paper.
The maximum number of digits of pi needed, theoretically, in a calculation is around 32. This is to find the circumference of the universe. Just because the numbers after the 32nd digit in pi are essentially useless in real life terms, doesn't mean the number is not irrational and it is nonsensical to think of pi as an irrational number.
You seem to have the false premise that unless mathematics produces answers that make sense in the real world, it is wrong. When that is demonstrably not the case.

1^{2} + 1^{2} = (rad(2))^{2} is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.
Modern mathematics has made all kinds of assumptions which have no link to the real world.
There are no perfect circles and squares: Pythagoras' formula a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2} is only solvable in the set of natural and rational numbers (as I have explained earlier).
It does not matter if it ever ends: at each step of the approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).
The greatest mathematician who ever lived was S. Ramanujan.
(http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/parafrenia/archives/Ramanujan.jpg)
The most incredible thing is how he obtained his results: from dreams.
In a letter to his relative SESHU IYER Sri Ramanujan has mentioned that when he went to sleep the GODDESS of NAMAKKAL appeared in his DREAMS AND REVEALED THE MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS TO HIM. ( Namakkal is a small village in South India and RAMANUJAN used to go and pray in a temple for GODDESS LAKSHMI ( also called GODDESS OF NAMAKKAL)there in his young age.
See for example his On Highly Composite Numbers article in The Collected Papers of S. Ramanujan (a must read for any serious mathematician).
The second place on the list is received by G.F. Riemann for a single formula discovered by C.L. Siegel more than 80 years ago in Riemann's unpublished notes:
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5uLAoued_dIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=riemann+zeta+function+edwards&source=bl&ots=7p76yI78Tb&sig=WHzbwx0RB7XcCHOL2clK0HgvdOM&hl=ro&ei=Lep2SuZDYuz4QaPg7maCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=5uLAoued_dIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=riemann+zeta+function+edwards&source=bl&ots=7p76yI78Tb&sig=WHzbwx0RB7XcCHOL2clK0HgvdOM&hl=ro&ei=Lep2SuZDYuz4QaPg7maCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) (the asymptotic expansion of the Zeta function, I recommend to everybody to read this fascinating work)
ryantg, do not confuse the APPLICATION of complex numbers to obtain certain results; in reality, complex numbers do not exist (just like the real numbers).
My favorite work on complex number analysis is:
http://books.google.ro/books?id=vmZ6PVtaexwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vmZ6PVtaexwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Please read again the commentaries by L. Kronecker and the work done by Borel: real numbers are a mathematical pipe dream with no connection to the real world.
Your logorrhea speech contained in the rest of your message has already been answered.

So you're not claiming that they continue forever, just that it is irrelevant if they do? That doesn't prove they end, thus making them rational numbers. If they cannot be demonstrated to have a fine solution that is not an approximation or truncation, then they are irrational.

I did not post any bibliographical references on Borel's work on real numbers, I thought you already knew what was going on; I was wrong.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf)
So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.
No, I didn't asked you for a soure of Borel's work (I've found several). I told you that the term "Borel's constant" does not seem to appear anywhere, so I asked you to give me sources, preferably sources from actual mathematicians with knowdlege of information theory.
Once again, you ignore that your key proof by contradiction (?) is not correct, as this effect is treated by information theory.
A continued fraction algorithm is a method for calculating that root to a certain degree of accuracy.
Exactly! The square root of a, always results in a periodic continued fraction (CF) when a is a squarefree integer.
Yet the root is not defined like that. It's defined as the limit of such a succesion.
There was no need to specify this: we are all here discussing at a level where such things are understood; it is exactly what was meant in my message.
As you claim that reals do not exist, we can not give anything for sure. You claim that reals do not exist, yet you claim that the square root of a is the limit of it's continued fraction? What number will it be at a infinite preccission? Or at another example, how do we express a number like 0.31313131313131313131... at it maximun accuracy? The lattter has a rational expression. It is infinitely long, yet it is a valid solution to equations. How do you define "realness"? If it has to be fully linked to the real world, nothing employing infinite could be used, neither nothing using zero. Anyway, you are yet to give a valid demostration. And, once again, I would like you to stop assuming what my mathematic knowdlege is. I have more to think at this moment than to make a proof for real numbers for a guy called Sandokhan on the Internet.

Irrationality Is The Square Root Of All Evil  Douglas Hofstadte

The greatest mathematician who ever lived was S. Ramanujan.
You do know his most famous work was in infinite series and continued fractions, something you seem to refute the existence going off your previous comments...
And he most certainly believed in irrational numbers.

You are nowhere to be found in any serious discussion on flat earth theory.
Well, neither are you. You prefer to lurk in the insane corner of flat earth theory.
Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.
Um, I'm not a scientist. ??? But to be fair, neither are you. You are a lunatic.

1^{2} + 1^{2} = (rad(2))^{2} is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.
What is wrong with a rightangled triangle whose legs are 1 meter long and whose hypotenuse is then sqrt2?

Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.
Um, I'm not a scientist. ??? But to be fair, neither are you. You are a lunatic.
You were warned. Grab his ears, sandokhan.

conker and ryantg...the notion of an infinite number of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual invention, with no connection to the real world.
In this context, in a pure mathematical realm of existence, we can play with infinite series, continued fractions, nroots.
I think we have dealt enough with this topic, the existence of irrational numbers, in this thread: my previous messages brought to your attention the things that you cannot find in any textbooks: Borel's proof that reals do not exist, Kronecker's legacy, and H. Poincare amazing discoveries about transverse homoclinic points.
(Ramanujan never questioned the existence of irrational numbers)
What is wrong with a rightangled triangle whose legs are 1 meter long and whose hypotenuse is then sqrt2?
The answer is to be found virtually in your very question: we no longer have A TRIANGLE. In the real world, there are no perfect circles, squares, or "triangles" with sides 1, 1, sqrt2  this is the point Kronecker, Borel and myself are trying to make.
raunchy, you are a homo ignoramus: you have chosen to live in a delusional world of your own order.
You actually wrote:
Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses. The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model
How are galaxies affected so strongly by gravity without being pulled into a sphere? I mean, I'd get it if you said they're so massless on average that they aren't held together by gravity. But obviously that's not the case.
The same goes for our solar system.
So Einstein was wrong when he said that gravity happens as a result of mass curving spacetime?
This is the kind of crap you are posting here each and every day.
You have a complete ignorance of the experiments performed by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century which do show and prove that gravity (either terrestrial or planetary) is not an attractive force.
You are also ignorant of the fact that the spacetime continuum hypothesis was created out of thin air by Minkowsky; the extraordinary works by Barbour and Kozyrev on the subject of time do prove that time could not possibly be represented by single variable (added incorrectly to another abstract concept, that of space); indeed, their experiments prove clearly that time is a function of torsion.
The reason you cannot contribute to any FE serious discussion is obviously related to the above findings: your scientific education is inexistent.
Insanity is a hallmark of delusion, irrationality, unreasonableness; since there is no attractive gravity, and you believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a spherical earth without such an attractive gravity, your belief qualifies you as being insane.
Each assertion that can be found in my messages is accompanied by copious bibliographical references and very precise proofs.
Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.

So Sandokhan, enlighten us as to the finite solution to sqrt2 without truncation or approximation.

Trick questions do not work with me.
At each step of the continued fraction approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).
An infinity of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual fancy of the mathematical imagination.

This thread has been thoroughly Levee'd.

I think the most convincing piece of evidence Sandokhan is that the system of mathematics and science the rest of us advocate on these forums are being used in real life, in real world applications to build new devices, buildings and technologies and gain a more thorough understanding of some phenomenon.
Your idiosyncratic ideas on the absence of irrational numbers and others are NOT being used in real life. Nobody cares for it, nobody needs it. You can carry on believing in all this nonsense, I certainly won't be believing in it until you can apply this to real world situations, something the mathematics currently in use does without problem.

ryantg, Borel's proof on the inexistence of real numbers speaks for itself, as do Kronecker's comments.
Please reread the message on transverse homoclinic orbits and Poincare's comments.
No nonsense at all, perhaps you were reading on someone else's messages.
This thread has been thoroughly Levee'd.
Not at all.
Each and every measurement/dimension relating to the great pyramid of Gizeh is a multiple of the sacred cubit.
http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca/ (http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca/)
Then the discussion was diverted into a very interesting debate about the existence of irrational numbers.
Certainly you had no idea and no knowledge about Borel's findings, Kronecker's comments, or the original quotes by Poincare.

Trick questions do not work with me.
At each step of the continued fraction approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).
An infinity of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual fancy of the mathematical imagination.
It is not a trick question. Sure an approximation or truncation can work in real world situations when absolute precision isn't necessary, a large part of why we have estimated error is because we can't have absolute precision. But this doesn't mean that the value is these approximations. If you can continue to calculate it to a desired precision, is there a point when it stops? The entire idea behind irrational numbers is that they can continue to be calculated to any number of decimals. If it doesn't stop, doesn't that mean it's irrational?

Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: an infinite number of decimals does not exist in nature, the real physical world (quantum level measurements).
Borel proved clearly that real numbers do not actually exist: they are used in a pure mathematical context (where you can continue to calculate further decimals).

The fact that they exist as a mathematical concept tells me they exist. Thank you and good day.

Completely wrong: most mathematical concepts are abstract inventions, which do not exist in the real world.
Nikola Tesla:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Read again Borel's proof of the inexistence of real numbers.

Your argument is irrelevant, Levee. It doesn't matter if irrational numbers don't exist in reality.

The simple fact that if I need 5, 10, 100 or , 1000 significant figures and I can still go further if needed tells me all I need to know. If you cannot express sqrt2 as a finite number without truncation or approximation then it is not finite. If you truncate numbers 1.75 could be 2 or 1.8, both of which are not 1.75.

How many times do we have to go through this?
Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: this is the exact point Kronecker made to his contemporaries (Cantor and Dedekind).
Do your homework and read:
http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man (http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man)
Your thousands of significant figures/decimals exist only on paper, with no connection to the real world; these significant figures can be obtained, in the case of the square root of 2, by continued fractions approximations.

Here are more assertions coming from roundy/raunchy's brain:
The movement of the celestial bodies as we see them on earth can be accurately predicted using gravity.
Perhaps butt cheeks are a better description of roundy's brain hemispheres.
Did you know that our own official heliocentric planetary system (together with the Sun) travels at some 20 km/s toward the star Vega?
This fact means you have to make a basic choice (no RE can escape this quandary): both Kepler's first law and the fact that the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix, cannot be true.
A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.
http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg (http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg)
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg)
Therefore, Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.
The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.
And of course, you had no idea about the faint young sun paradox before you were fortunate enough to read my messages:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927)
Here is the barometric pressure paradox document:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UcRuHzsweSq (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UcRuHzsweSq)
A clear and absolute violation of the law of attractive gravity, which, in your insane and delusional universe, explains the movement of the celestial bodies.
If we go straight to the Jupiter infrared radiation paradox, I will reach, of course, the 2 minute limit I proposed to you earlier.

How many times do we have to go through this?
Irrational numbers are a mathematical invention: this is the exact point Kronecker made to his contemporaries (Cantor and Dedekind).
Do your homework and read:
http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man (http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man)
Your thousands of significant figures/decimals exist only on paper, with no connection to the real world; these significant figures can be obtained, in the case of the square root of 2, by continued fractions approximations.
It seems you have latched onto one outdated scientist and effectively ignored all contending opinions. Who cares about Leopold Kronecker? I certainly don't, for every one of these guys there are tens of thousands of mathematicians who have lived or who are living today who hold a completely opposite worldview.
I think every time you link multiple page paragraphs of work from a single scientist or mathematician I will equally link you a plethora of sources from well known mathematicians who hold the exact opposite view. Then you might see what it feels like to be in our position.
You should feel extremely humble that there are any people who are willing to spend the time and effort reading what you write and refuting your claims because the scientific and mathematical community could not care less, those are the people you should be trying to convince, not a couple of people who believe in a flat earth and those who joined this forum for a laugh and to debate.

Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.
No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate. I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.

Insanokhan.
lol

I just came to the realization that every measurement on Earth is actually irrational since there is no perfect square, circle, our triangle. You can continue to measure with more precise tools, and you'll continue to measure some fraction of a difference. Therefore I'm claiming rational numbers do not exist.

No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate. I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.
How ironic since you subscribe to numerous irrational and baseless conspiracies along with the idea that the earth is flat even though it is demonstrably spherical. If Sandokhan is at 100/100 on the insaneometer, you are around 75. Less of the contemptuous comments.

Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.
Time to put up or shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_atomic_emission_spectroscopy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_atomic_emission_spectroscopy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xray_fluorescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xray_fluorescence)

Wasn't there a "FET scientists" group, that got lost due to lack of interest? I shall call al that people willing to do experiments, and unite against the greatest weirdo believer ever: Sandokhan. C'mon, people.
Also, Shandy, Relativity

No, that's okay, I refuse to fall in with these sheep and attempt to engage a lunatic in any kind of debate. I bid you adieu, Insanokhan.
How ironic since you subscribe to numerous irrational and baseless conspiracies along with the idea that the earth is flat even though it is demonstrably spherical. If Sandokhan is at 100/100 on the insaneometer, you are around 75. Less of the contemptuous comments.
I was expecting somebody to say this eventually, and I'm not surprised it was you.
Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't subscribe to any baseless conspiracies.

ryantg, at the present time, you are in no position to debate with me on any subject (science, philosophy, psychology, to name just a few).
As I have demonstrated to you very clearly, you lack the scientific knowledge to even dream to discuss with me the theory of relativity, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics (take your pick from manifold theory, to global bifurcation theory, to continuum mechanics)...
I have already proven that you have insane beliefs:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506160.html#msg1506160 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506160.html#msg1506160)
You had no knowledge about the original Maxwell equations: this alone disqualifies you as a serious scientist, there is no meter than can measure your ignorance.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506806.html#msg1506806 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1506806.html#msg1506806)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1507839.html#msg1507839 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58768.msg1507839.html#msg1507839)
To call the mutilation of the original Maxwell equations as an "improvement" shows your flimsy scientific background, certainly you shouldn't be posting here.
Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which  by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components  Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.
It takes less than a few minutes to debunk your false beliefs/theories...

I was expecting somebody to say this eventually, and I'm not surprised it was you.
I wouldn't of said anything until you expressed contempt on everybody replying to Sandokhan.
Anyway, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't subscribe to any baseless conspiracies.
Yes, i'm sure you don't. *cough* satellites don't exist *cough*...

ryantg, at the present time, you are in no position to debate with me on any subject (science, philosophy, psychology, to name just a few).
As I have demonstrated to you very clearly, you lack the scientific knowledge to even dream to discuss with me the theory of relativity, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics (take your pick from manifold theory, to global bifurcation theory, to continuum mechanics)...
"To call the mutilation of the original Maxwell equations as an "improvement" shows your flimsy scientific background, certainly you shouldn't be posting here."
Sandokhan, I could be Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind or any other physicist and you'd still keep saying I lack the scientific knowledge to talk about these ideas because you don't agree with the mainstream view.
I don't lack the scientific knowledge, you could ask any physicist about the Maxwell equations (except maybe for those idiots you keep linking to) and they would say they've been improved. I've sat in lecture halls where a physicist at Cambridge University has talked about the history of these equations and I explicitly remember him saying they were improved and they were worked upon, because that is what science is, science progresses.
Now do I trust you? A mentally ill lunatic who posts on a flat earth forum trying to convince people of his radical new ideas, or a cambridge physicist?
I think anybody could answer that.
I'll always remember an interview with Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologists from the California Institute of Technology and he was asked a question: "Do you get many messages from cranks trying to convince you of their ideas?" and his reply was " I have already gotten contacted once since this conversation began...".
It is a poignant reminder Sandokhan that you are not the only person out there doing this, there are thousands of people exactly like you who believe they have built this theory for everything and everybody else is delusional.
The fact of the matter is, your ideas are never going to gain a grasp in the scientific community. I suggest you give up now personally, you've spent way too much time on this.
Let the new theories and discoveries come from those who actually have a scientific background in the field they have researched their whole entire life. Not you who believes he is a master of everything.

Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.
Time to put up or shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_atomic_emission_spectroscopy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma_atomic_emission_spectroscopy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR_spectroscopy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xray_fluorescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xray_fluorescence)
Still waiting.

You are beneath levee's notice.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf)
So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.
Clear enough for you?
The quoted link is well worth a look. I've just had a quick shufty and it seems to be pointing towards a paradox in the definition of a real number.

If real numbers were to be proven to be not so real after all, would that make them any less useful?

If real numbers were to be proven to be not so real after all, would that make them any less useful?
Clearly. 1+1=1

ryantg, I repeat: you are no scientist.
Here is what you wrote:
Yes a photon is massless, the speed of light c is most definitely a constant (under known conditions) and yes the general theory of relativity is always going to be correct.
Fanaticism is a sure sign of lunacy.
But in fact the general theory of relativity IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Your Cambrigde lectures cannot help you sheer ignorance.
Please attend Dr. Stephen Phillips' lectures on subquarks at Cambrige (he lectured extensively at Cambridge; you might try to contact him and he will confirm that everything I wrote is true.)
Let me prove to you your monstruous level of ignorance re: GTR/STR.
The speed of light was not known to be constant, not in 1877, not in 1905, not today.
There is no such thing as spacetime geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.
Tesla underlined that time was a mere manmade reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved spacetime' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'spacetime' binomium concept.
Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.
He considered time as a mere manmade 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.
'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible  But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.
(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220pxRiemann_surface_log.jpg)
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html)
the abstract concept of ndimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of manyvalued analytical functions.'
Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.
How was this done?
In contrast Riemann’s original nonEuclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's fourdimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's FourDimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called spacetime’. In this abstract, fourdimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
Are with me ryantg, so far? In our direct debates, I proved your every point to be utterly wrong.
EINSTEIN FALLACIES:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm)
REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (one of the best works on the variability of light)
EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic
http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html (http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html)
“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)
However, spacetime as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
The MichelsonMorley catastrophe:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm)
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf) (chapters 510)
http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm) (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)
Rest assured ryantg: if I were to come to Cambridge to lecture on any of the subjects discussed here, the audience would be enthralled.
Your 10% of actual scientific knowledge will get you nowhere in any direct debates with me.
Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
"The effect [of etherdrift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20thcentury science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.
Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’
William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:
First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and selfcontradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hypedup theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.
G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brainmind” constructions or phantasies.
In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.
This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.
In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:
Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the MichelsonMorley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.
There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipedream’.
Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’
Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)
Sections:
The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
NonEvidence A: Flights of Fantasy
NonEvidence B: GPS Satellites
NonEvidence C: Muon Decay
The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Spacetime
The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.
In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.
Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED
Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.
Nikola Tesla:
The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wavetrain should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than onetwelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].
Tesla Patent/original paper:
http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)
With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MITtrained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.
“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)
Are you going to call Tesla, DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown lunatics as well? I hope not...do your homework ryantg.

What are we going to do with you ryantg?
Do not attend further Cambridge lectures: listen carefully, you might learn something.
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peerreviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".
In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a nonspinning ball were catapulted sidebyside with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its nonspinning counterpart.
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also notrotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:
Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical nonrotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical nonrotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood  on the basis of radically new concepts in physics  concepts so radical that only the heretofore ununderstood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
Exactly the findings mentioned by none other than Sir Isaac Newton:
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
What a lunatic this Newton...to state that terrestrial gravity is due to the PRESSURE EXERTED BY ETHER.
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.
Imagine what would happen to your remaining bit of sanity if we were to debate the Tunguska event...

There's no way I'm reading that. someone tl;dr it, please.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf)
So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.
Clear enough for you?
The quoted link is well worth a look. I've just had a quick shufty and it seems to be pointing towards a paradox in the definition of a real number.
mathsman, go back and read the masters of mathematics (end of the 19th century, early 20th century).
Here is another gem for you.
Contrary to current beliefs held by the researchers in manifold/differential topology theories, the quest for the fourth dimension meant a very different thing 100 years ago.
Both Kaluza and Klein understood that the fourth dimension is curled up in a circle of a very small radius, in fact the smallest radius possible.
Therefore, the fourth dimension is located at the radius level of the boson/antiboson, exactly what Maxwell's original equations state.
the original Maxwell equations are based on a scalar wave theory, and on a variable speed of light concept.
On the modified Maxwell equations:
" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.
"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.
This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations  which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes  never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!
Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.
Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.
What electrical engineers work with today, is a subset of a highertopology EM. The four "Maxwell's Equations" taught today in electrical engineering are actually an oversimplified subset of Maxwell's original work. The pruning was done by Oliver Heaviside in the late 19th century; Heaviside took Maxwell's original equations, written in Hamilton's quaternions (related to what we nowadays call spinors), and "simplified" them by lopping off the scalar part of the complex numbers, leaving the easytoworkwith vector part intact which radio engineers loved.
When Heaviside threw out the scalar part of the quaternionic EM equation, he unknowingly threw out the possibility of unifying gravitation with electromagnetism which has been a holy grail for scientists since Einstein himself wrestled with the problem. That's because the scalar part of the quaternion was the part that captured or modeled the "stress on the aether" which leads to curving/warping spacetime a la Einstein. We CAN unify gravity with EM, and convert back and forth between them, if we understand how vectors and scalars relate to one another and what the ramifications are.
ryantg...you should be ashamed: before you read my messages, you had no idea about the original Maxwell equations, please give alms and prayers for having had the chance to do so.
conqer, do not show your true colors here: two pages of the best proofs that GTR/STR do not exist certainly are worth your time...I tried to keep the material to a minimum though...stop complaining: at the MS/PhD level you are required to read hundreds of pages (if not thousands), are you telling us you cannot read even two pages of the best bibliographical references?

I've had a read and a little think about that link and I'm not convinced that irrational numbers are substantially different from any other numbers; different definition certainly, computationally different certainly but still just a point on a line. It may be down to my ignorance or my outlook on mathematics but as soon as somebody starts going 'meta' with mathematics I get bored very quickly.

I wonder if Sanokahn realizes how many numbers (rational, irrational, etc.) his favorite alternative scientists had to use to prove the mainstream wrong.

Sandokhan what the hell are you going on about?
If you're going to troll don't make it so obvious.

We get it Sandy, everybody is wrong about everything.
What is so great about the 'sacred cubit'?

I prefer the qubit myself.

ryantg, I repeat: you are no scientist.
Here is what you wrote:
Yes a photon is massless, the speed of light c is most definitely a constant (under known conditions) and yes the general theory of relativity is always going to be correct.
Fanaticism is a sure sign of lunacy.
But in fact the general theory of relativity IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Saying gravity is not a force but is something else is actually probably correct. This is the fundumental idea of general relativity.
Your Cambrigde lectures cannot help you sheer ignorance.
Please attend Dr. Stephen Phillips' lectures on subquarks at Cambrige (he lectured extensively at Cambridge; you might try to contact him and he will confirm that everything I wrote is true.)
RET accepts subquarks. Dr. Stephen Phillips would not agree with how you use them.
Let me prove to you your monstruous level of ignorance re: GTR/STR.
The speed of light was not known to be constant, not in 1877, not in 1905, not today.
There is no such thing as spacetime geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.
Tesla underlined that time was a mere manmade reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved spacetime' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'spacetime' binomium concept.
Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.
Time is another subject. Tesla isn't going o be the end all to an argument on time.
He considered time as a mere manmade 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.
'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible  But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
That was his opinion. He had alot of opinions.
...
More time arguments.
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called spacetime’. In this abstract, fourdimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
All theories can be shown to be wrong.
EINSTEIN FALLACIES:
Full of fallacies itself.
REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:
Full of outdated informational and opinions. .
EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic
More reliance on the non detected ether.
On another note, Michelson  Morley experiment used electromagnetic waves.
“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”
I'm still wondering why ether theory is so popular.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
Theories can be shown to be wrong.
The MichelsonMorley catastrophe:
Maybe oneday someone will detect ether.
Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
"The effect [of etherdrift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)
Null results.
Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20thcentury science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.
Noone says that it passes every test with flying colors.
Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.
Meaningless to me.
William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:
First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and selfcontradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hypedup theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.
Cool.
G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brainmind” constructions or phantasies.
Cool
In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.
This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.
Not baseless and he knows theories can be shown to be wrong.
In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:
Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the MichelsonMorley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.
Cool.
There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipedream’.
There is experiments out there with results. They are just experiments.
Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’
I'm starting to think ether belief is a religion.
Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:
Your post is so long you forgot you already posted a link and posted the same exact one. Congrats.
Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED
Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.
His FTL idea was about alien waves.
Nikola Tesla:
The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wavetrain should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than onetwelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].
He called his longitudinal waves FTL waves. It is not thought he was using low frequency waves, which are known.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_10.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_10.htm)
Tesla Patent/original paper:
Cool.
With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MITtrained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.
“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.
(all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)
It hurts my brain every time you link to something that uses electromagnetic waves to disprove GR when you don't even believe in electromagnetic waves. This also includes Telsa's electromagnetic work.
Are you going to call Tesla, DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown lunatics as well? I hope not...do your homework ryantg.
You put words into their mouths.
[/quote]

What are we going to do with you ryantg?
Do not attend further Cambridge lectures: listen carefully, you might learn something.
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peerreviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".
Where did he say the gyroscope harnessed the ether to become lighter?
In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a nonspinning ball were catapulted sidebyside with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its nonspinning counterpart.
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also notrotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:
Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical nonrotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical nonrotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood  on the basis of radically new concepts in physics  concepts so radical that only the heretofore ununderstood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
Where did DePalma say the spinning ball harnessed the ether? Why doesn't the non spinning ball harness ether?
It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
Neither one of them made that claim. It was just you.
...
outdated info.
Imagine what would happen to your remaining bit of sanity if we were to debate the Tunguska event...
Nothing, because you cannot comprehend that light can go around corners.
Still waiting.
Still waiting, still. Maybe you should finally just give up and acknowledge electromagnetic waves. Seeing is how you keep using them for arguments.

Sandokhan what the hell are you going on about?
If you're going to troll don't make it so obvious.
Usually this would be sound advice, but somehow Insanokhan manages success every time anyway. It can actually be amusing seeing someone (such as Sokarul just above for example) respond to him and realize that he actually read the entire post, and put thought into why it was wrong.

Usually this would be sound advice, but somehow Insanokhan manages success every time anyway. It can actually be amusing seeing someone (such as Sokarul just above for example) respond to him and realize that he actually read the entire post, and put thought into why it was wrong.
Sokarul spends all this time and effort on big posts but he is always incorrect. I bet he still believes that carrots don't dissolve in water. His scientific reach exceeds his grasp.